The fundamental problem with America's retreat

This thread is based upon the assumption that America is in "retreat" and I don't see it in those terms. I address it more as a change in management styles where we need to transition from Theory X management (i.e. might makes right) to Theory Y management. Theory X used the "whip" to obtain results while Theory Y used "inspiration, empowerment, and motivation" to achieve superior results.

The greatest strength of America is our ideals and not our weapons. Our ideals can inspire others to emulate us while our weapons only lead to people hating us. No one likes a bully and when we engage in international political hypocracy and enforce it with weapons of war it's no wonder that the US has such a negative reputation in much of the world. I addressed this issue in 1998 in my editorial Wisdom not Weapons related to terrorism and, as we know, the terrorist threat against the United States is actually greater now than it was in 1998 because we used, and continue to use weapons and not wisdom is addressing the causes behind terrorism.

worldpf.com/thread/194/wisdom-weapons-needed-terrorism-1998

The people of the world need a shining example to follow and based upon the ideals upon which America was founded we could be the inspiration for the people of the world. The problem is that we don't come anywhere close to living up to our ideals in our international affairs and actions. We are failing at what we could do better than any other nation in accomplishing. Instead of being "the wise man" that others would follow we are the "bully on the block" that turns people against us. Our policy of "Do what I say and not as I do" simply doesn't work as a nation anymore than it would work for a parent.

We need a "change in management style" because what we're doing simply doesn't work. You can't "win the hearts and minds" of people by killing them. It doesn't work but that is our fundamental foreign policy today based upon "Might Makes Right" because might doesn't make right. Right Makes Right and we've abandoned our own ideals related to our foreign policy.

Apr 4, 2014 17:27:23 GMT pjohns1873 said:

First, let me thank you for a thoughtful response.  We often disagree--and certainly, that is the case here, also--but that cannot vitiate the fact that your responses are consistently well reasoned.

I quite agree that the use of nuclear weapons, in combat, would amount to "complete insanity." That is why I have a fundamental difficulty with others (on some other political forums) who appear to believe that if NATO were to involve itself in the Balkans (where Russia might invade, to "protect" the large ethnic-Russian population there), and if it were to repel the Russian invaders, why, the Russians would surely resort to the use of tactical nuclear weapons--as if this might (somehow) turn the tide of the war. (As the late Ronald Reagan once opined, however, nuclear weapons must never be used, since a nuclear war simply cannot be "won," in any meaningful sense of the word.  And presumably, the Russians know this, too.) 

The distinction you make between protecting and defending the US Constitution (on the one hand) and protecting and defending the United States (on the other hand) strikes me as the proverbial distinction without a difference. The US, after all, is defined by the US Constitution. To defend one, as aggressively as necessary, while being utterly indifferent to the other, is a bit like, say, claiming to love one's wife while despising everything that makes her who she is.

In theory, at least, the courts comprise one of three co-equal branches of government.  In practice, however, the SCOTUS' rulings are not always the dispassionate and neutral result of careful analysis, due to the prevailing theory (of some) that the Judicial Branch of government should merely be one more engine of social change (along with the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch). 

By the way, it is certainly permissible, in my view, to question the seminal Court ruling, Marbury v. Madison, from 1803--more than two full centuries ago--that imbued the High Court with extraordinary powers. 

Oh, I also agree that it is very unlikely that either the US or the UK might use nuclear weapons--at least, in a first-strike capacity.  Almost immediately following the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945--which impress me as being morally ambiguous:  I can see how it may have ultimately saved some lives, net, by shortening the war, and avoiding protracted hand-to-hand, house-to-house combat; but it came at the cost of many innocent lives--there developed, in the West, a strong taboo against the first use of nuclear weapons.  Whereas it is conceivable to me that a Western-style country (Israel) might use tactical nuclear weapons against an existential threat (such as Iran), that taboo remains firmly in effect for most of the West.      

We would agree that the greatest threat of nuclear war comes from India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel and the only pragmatic restraint is really for the authorized nuclear weapon nations that are an "ally" of these nations to threaten them with a nuclear retallitory response. Not their so-called enemies but instead their allies. Israel, for example, might not hesitate to use tactical nukes to attack Iran believing that the United States would protect it from a Russian nuclear retallitory response but if the US was to threaten Israel with a nuclear retallitory response it would dispell this belief. It has to be a creditable threat from and ally to deter the use of nuclear weapons.

Yes, I draw a distinction between the US Constitution and the government of the United States. Euphemistic rhetoric such as 'enhanced interrogation', and 'extraordinary rendition,' and "extrajudicial executions" are used by our government to cover-up violations of the US Constitution, US law and International Law to avoid bringing those responsible to justice. It deeply troubles me that our government has abandoned the US Constition in many of it's actions and this is not going unnoticed by the other nations of the world.

thesovereigninvestor.com/2014/04/02/un-condemns-america-human-rights-violations/

I don't have a problem with Marbury v. Madison because, as the US Supreme Court expressed in it's decision, in order to resolve issues of law under the US Constitution the Court must be able to interprete the US Constitution. A fundamental requirement for any Court to adjudicate based upon the law is for the Court to interprete and apply the law. Marbury v. Madison was a unanimous Supreme Court decsions (i.e. 4-0 with 2 abstaining) and the problem we have today IMO is that instead of requiring unanimous consent by the Supreme Court to support the law or action based upon the US Constitution we allow majority rule that allows "political" interpretation of a simply majority. "Unanimous Consent" is not a perfect protection of the US Constitution but it would represent the maximum possible pragmatic protection of the US Constitution.

Apr 5, 2014 19:24:09 GMT pjohns1873 said:

If Israel were to use tactical nukes against Iran--a scenario that is not at all inconceivable to me--it would almost certainly not be for the purpose of vaporizing Iran's civilian population. Rather, it would surely be for the purpose of obliterating the hardened sites in which Iran has its own nuclear facilities. (If a large enough bunker-buster bomb--which is a conventional weapon--would work, this is probably what Israel would use, so as not to upset the sensibilities of others quite as much.)

Your apparent view that enhanced interrogation is simply a euphemism for torture is an interpretation that I do not share. 

As for rendition ("extraordinary" or otherwise), I really have no problem with our handing over, to other countries, those who have acted as terrorists against Americans. 

And frankly, I remain quite unconcerned about the sensibilities of those among "the other nations of the world." My singular desire (well, more like my twofold desire, I guess) is for the US to be respected by its allies and feared by its enemies--nothing more, and nothing less.  

The use of nuclear weapons, regardless of whether they're tactical or strategic nuclear weapons, is unacceptable. We can also point out three facts. Israel is not a part of the NPT and has no international authority related to nuclear nonproliferation. Iran is a problem for the NPT and not Israel to deal with. Next is the fact that there is no evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon. Remember that the NPT allows a nation to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes and there is no evidence that Iran has ever enriched uranium to "weapons grade" that requires a 90% enrichment level. Finally the "problem of Iran" could have been resolved years ago if Israel would have joined the NPT and dismantled it's nuclear weapons.

As every Middle East nation points out it is Israel's nuclear weapons that can be used rationalize the building of nuclear weapons by other nations in the Middle East. If Israel were to use a tactical nuclear weapon there would be a secret nuclear arms race like you wouldn't believe in the Middle East. Just what we need, more crazy Islamic nations with nukes.

It is not my "opinion" that the enhanced interrogation techniques were torture because they are based upon the statutory definition of torture under US law reference U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 113C › § 2340

www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2340

Every "enhanced interrogation technique" authorized violated this statutory definition of torture. Over 40 people in Afghanistan subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques" died and at least eight of them were classified as homocide by the coroners but no one was ever prosecuted and convicted related to these homocides. Eight documented cases of murder and not a single prosecution and conviction.

There was no evidence that those subjected to "rendition" committed any acts of terrorism against the United States or any nation. Had there been any evidence the US would have prosecuted them. That's why the US handed them over to foreign countries knowing they would be subjected to torture. In several documented case the person was actually prosecuted and found not guilt of committing any act of terroris, The US also engaged in the illegal kidnapping of people from foreign countries and, in fact, several CIA agents have been found guilty (in absentia) by the Italian courts and if they go to a foreign country where an extradition treaty exists with Italy then can be arrested and extradited to Italy to serve their prison sentences.
 

If the United States abided by the ideology the nation was founded upon we would have few enemies. It is the hypocrasy of US foreign policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" that has lead us to support far too many tyrannical governments around the world that has created most of our enemies.

The original al Qaeda terrorist threat against the United States was based upon the US support for Saudi Arabia and Israel that are both tyrannical nations when it comes to the treatment of the Muslim People, If you doubt this just check out the reports on human rights violations by both of these countries.

Iran, for example, is a "enemy" that the United States created because or our hypocracy related to Israel that is a tyrannical war-mongering nation. If the US, as one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and leader of the NPT had demanded that Israel dismantle its nuclear weapons and imposed sanction similar to what it did with S Africa (that Israel armed with nuclear weapons) then Iran wouldn't have any rationalization to build a nuclear weapon. It's the "Israel that attacks it's neighbors can have nukes but Iran that doesn't attack it's neighbors can't" that is pure hypocrasy that has "created" an enemy of Iran. Hell, they even forgive us for helping to overthrow their democratic government in the 1950's and subjecting them to decades of tyranny by the Shah. The Iranian People, for whatever reason, still tend to like Americans although they are opposed to our hypocrasy when it comes to Israel that they justifiably see as the greatest problem in the Middle East.

Want to be able to remove N Korea off of our "ememies" list? How about withdrawing the 20-some thousand US troops from their border? The troops not only represent a threat of conventional military aggression against N Korea they also represent a nuclear threat against N Korea because we have nuclear weapons. The N Koreans were able to "rationalize" producing nuclear weapons because the United States represented a nuclear threat sitting on their border. We may not agree with the "rationalization" but we did provide the foundation for that rationalization.  

Apr 6, 2014 19:42:00 GMT pjohns1873 said:

To declare that South Korea (and, by extension, the US) is the provocateur on the Korean Peninsula is, well, entirely upside-down.  Those US troops stationed near the DMZ are there to act as a tripwire, should North Korea invade the South.  (There is simply not one shred of evidence that the opposite might ever occur.) 

Kim Jong-un (and prior to him, Kim Jong-il; and even earlier, Kim Il-sung) has been stirring the pot as much as possible--perhaps to try to engender, in the North Korean people, a sort of fervid nationalism, thereby taking their minds off their Fourth World living conditions.  (The Hermit Kingdom really cannot be characterized as "Third World"; to do so is to give it far too much credit, and simultaneously insult such Third World nations as, say, Guatemala and Haiti.)     

To pretend that Iran is concerned that Israel might "attack" it, and that it therefore requires nukes in order to protect itself, is similarly jaw-dropping.  Israel has never--yes, absolutely never--expressed any wish to subjugate Iran, unless it was in a purely defensive context. 

I quite agree with your severe distaste for Saudi Arabia, however--albeit for rather different reasons than your own:  A nation that attempts to deflect internal dissent by making the US a bogeyman, and therefore sponsoring Madrasas specializing in Wahhabist thinking, is probably no real friend of the US.  To say the least.   

I am certainly no expert on the subject of uranium enrichment; and I would not pretend to be.  But it is my understanding--from those who know much more about the matter than I do--that enrichment to just 90 percent gives a nation "breakout" capacity (or "critical capability"), following which it would be virtually impossible to stop it from acquiring nuclear weapons very quickly. 

Let's take this case by case.

South Korea doesn't require US troops to defend against a North Korea invasion. We only have about 20,000 troops stationed on the border to North Korea as I understand it and South Korea has a very, very competent military. ROC (Republic of Korea) troops served in Vietnam and were perhaps more feared than the US troops in Vietnam. All the US troops provide is a creditable threat of the use of tactical nukes against North Korea and North Korea, right or wrong, can rationalize the possession of it's own nuclear weapons as a deterant. And while South Korea doesn't specifically represent a threat of invasion of North Korea the United States, with it's long post WW II use of military force in other countries, does represent a creditable threat. In the last 15 years alone we've invaded two different countries, overthrown their governments, and neither of those countries ever attacked us or even represented a threat of attaching us. We, the United States, are the threat to North Korea and not South Korea. We're the nation that invades and/or overthrows existing governments and we've done so repeatedly since WW II.

Israel has been threatening Iran with a military attack for years and Israel has attacked other nations in the Middle East including Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt. Israel is the most militaristic nation in the Middle East and has been virtually since it's founding. It goes out of it's way to rationalize attacking other nations often based on outright propaganda that is unsupported by fact. Israel, for example, was totally responsible for the 1967 Six-Day War with the sole intent of acquiring territory and everyone that knows the history understands that. Israel provoked the war and has made every effort since to secure the lands it wanted in 1967 while the United States has refused to do anything to prevent this from happening.

Today there is no evidence that Iran is trying to actually build a nuclear weapon but it could be. Israel is openly threatening an attack against Iran nuclear enrichment facilities in violation of the UN Charter that it is a treaty member of.

Let me point out that the NPT does not prevent enrichment of uranium even to "weapons" grade of 90%. It does not prevent a nation from doing the scientific and theoretical research necessary to produce a nuclear weapon. All the NPT prohibits is the actual manufacture of a nuclear weapon and/or providing the materials or an actual nuclear weapon to a third party. There is no evidence of Iran doing either of these.

When it comes to the Middle East Israel is the military aggressor and Israel is the nation that has violated the principles of the NPT that the NPT treaty members are supposed to be enforcing on all nations including nations that don't belong to the NPT. Israel has nuclear weapons in violation of the NPT and Israel armed South Africa with nuclear weapons (since dismantled) in violation of the NPT but has suffered no enforcement by the NPT because the US has blocked enforcement.   

Iran, for many years, has offered to allow any and all "inspections" that the IAEA would desire so long as Israel joins the NPT, dismantles it's nuclear weapons, and submits to the identical IAEA inspections. In short Iran has called for "equal treatment" under the NPT with Israel. The NPT cannot by hypocritical in it's actions related to enforcement of the conditions of the NPT regardless of whether a nation is or is not a member of the NPT in meeting it's stated purpose of preventing nuclear arms proliferation.